Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fully captures the behavior of this pure function: two numeric inputs in, a sum out, with no side effects, state changes, or external dependencies to disclose. Edge cases like overflow are not mentioned, but for a simple arithmetic operation the core behavior is completely transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single eight-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object and contains zero wasted words. Every token earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter pure arithmetic function with no output schema, no annotations, and no nested objects, the description covers what the tool does, what it consumes, and what it returns. Nothing material is missing at this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the phrase 'two numbers' maps directly onto the two required parameters a and b and states the operation that relates them. Since addition is commutative, parameter ordering is irrelevant, so no further per-parameter guidance is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Adds'), the resource ('two numbers'), and the result ('returns the sum'). The description is unambiguous on its own and clearly distinct from the sibling tools echo and server_time, which have no relation to arithmetic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The use case is strongly implied by the name and description — use it when you need to sum two numbers — and the siblings are unrelated, so real ambiguity is low. However, the description does not explicitly state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.